Disposed

Ranjit Kalwa Benewal and 18 Ors. v. Gurukrupa Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 24 Ors.

Bombay HC31 Jan 2008WP/193/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an election-related order under the M.C.S. Act, 1960, as elections were imminent and interference would cause delay. A request for restoration was accepted, and disposal was directed without adjudicating rival claims regarding the election officer's impartiality.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition was restored to file and disposed of on terms allowing challenge to election officer appointment in separate proceedings.

Ranjit Kalwa Benewal and 18 Ors. Vs Gurukrupa Co-Op… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.193 OF 2008

¶4

 R.K.Benewal. ..Petitioner.

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 Gurukripa Co-op.Hsg.Soc. ..Respondent.

¶7

 None for petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.G.N.Salunke for Respondent.

¶9

 Later on Mr.S.K.Shinde i/b. Sagar Kasar for
 petitioner.

¶10

 CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J

¶11

 DATE : JANUARY 31, 2008.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

 1. None appears for the Petitioner, when the
 matter is called out. Dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶14

 2. Later on Mr.Shinde, advocate for Petitioner
 appeared and mentioned the matter for restoration of
 the Petitioner, as he was held up in some other
 court. For the reason mentioned across the bar,
 request for recalling the order passed in morning
 session is accepted. Accordingly, Writ Petition is
 restored to the file to its original number and heard
 forthwith by consent.

¶15

 3. This Petition essentially takes exception to

¶16

¶17

 the Order dated 28th August, 2006 passed by the Dy.
 Registrar, Co-Operative Society MHADA u/section 77(A)
 of the M.C.S.Act, 1960, which order came to be
 confirmed by the Divisional Joint Registrar,
 Co-op.Societies in Appeal No.185 of 2007 vide Order
 dated 17th December, 2007, which is also subject
 matter of the challenge in the present Petition. It
 is not in dispute that in the mean time, the election
 process has already commenced. The election date is
 now notified as 10th February, 2008. In view of this
 development and the fact that election will be soon
 conducted and newly elected body will take over
 charge of the Managing Committee, there is no reason
 to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶18

 4. Counsel for the Petitioner however, submits

¶19

 that the Administrator has appointed Mr.
 P.G.Palvankar as Election Officer who according to
 the Petitioner is an impartial person. The
 Petitioner would rely on the circumstance, such as
 FIR registered by the said Palvankar that nomination
 form of the Petitioner has been stolen-so as to
 affect election prospects of the Petitioner. It is
 not necessary to examine those questions in the
 present proceedings.

¶20

¶21

 5. It will be open to the Petitioner to question
 the appointment of said Mr.Palvankar in appropriate
 proceedings, to which he may resort, as may be
 permissible by law. The said proceedings questioning
 the impartiality of Mr.Palvankar as election officer
 will have to be considered in accordance with the law
 uninfluenced by the fact of upholding the impugned
 order or rejection of the Writ Petition.

¶22

 6. Petition disposed of on the above terms.

¶23

(A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Ranjit Kalwa Benewal and 18 Ors. v. Gurukrupa Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 24 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Kalwa Benewal and 18 Ors. v. Gurukrupa Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 24 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahanagar Telephone Nigamltd and Anr. Vs Haji Ebrahim Salemohmed

The Mahanagar Telephone Niagam Ltd. Vs Shri a H Gopani

Mahanagar Telephone Nigamltd and Anr. Vs Mr Raj Lekhraj Nairyani

The M.T.N.L. Vs Savitridevi Jajoo.

M.T.N.L. Vs Shri Severius Chales Carvalho.

Warrior (Investment) Ltd. and Forbes Campbell Holding Ltd. Vs --